Behind Glass Walls

By ToniVC from Flickr under CC BY-NC-ND

Enterprise 2.0:

• Where did my Time go?
• Generic Toolbox or Specific Solution?

Dion Hinchcliffe‘s article on 14 Reasons Why Enterprise 2.0 Projects Fail provides some insight into the current effectiveness of the QUT Library’s initiatives, and some lessons that they could take on board. There is a a definite road bump in the form of governance (point seven), as well as islands of participation surrounded by inaction (point ten). I’m going to talk about “Pushing Enterprise 2.0 as a generic toolbox instead of the solution to specific problems” (point eight), which can lead to “Not waiting long enough to let critical mass build” (point fourteen).

There are a range of issues in the area of pushing Enterprise 2.0 as a generic solution, rather than choosing solutions that best fit specific problems.

For example, the Library does have a twitter account, which at the moment is almost exclusively used for announcements and Library news. This is an old point, but Twitter usually works best as a social platform, not a broadcast platform. It can be used that way, but I think this could be partly due to seeing Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 as a hammer, and treating everything as a nail.

A central issue for the Library is one of time. Staff time. Student time. Students have little time to spare, and adding to that load through extra features on the Library website may not be the best path. Instead, some specific issues should be addressed.

For example, rather than incorporating rating functionality that requires extra work, a recommendation system could use the number of visits, visit lengths, and time of stay to calculate ratings for each resource. This would utilise a core element of Web 2.0 – data is important, and can be used for a huge range of things. Essentially, the ratings are already there, just waiting for an algorithm to extract them, and a method of displaying them.

Finally, in the course of using tools that might not fit the purpose or building functionality that requires more user input, there is a very real risk that these errors will not be seen as the cause. Lack of adoption might be blamed on promotion or issues from lack of strict governance. Finding tools that fit a specific problem is only the first step – how the tools are used, and the extra time required is an important consideration.

I’ve often heard people say that they see a lot of crap on such-and-such a website. Or there’s only very little useful information on the Internet. Or the classic: much of Twitter is ‘pointless babble‘. You know what? They’re probably right. So does that mean we need to do something about all the useless stuff?

Nope.

Here’s what you do: you find communities,  you follow people on Twitter, you read websites that, wait for it… have content you’re interested in. If it’s crap (to you), ignore it.

This idea links back to the Long Tail – when you remove “shelf space” from the equation, everything can be “stocked”, anything can be “sold”. In other words, if there is a market for something, even a market of one, that market is viable. Applying this to Twitter, or any community, the Internet provides a home for any discussion. If the person viewing it does not think it worthwhile, then it probably was not intended for that person. There is someone out there who will appreciate it.

The Internet has made conversations that used to be private into public affairs. So when we come across them, we assume they were meant for us, since they’re public.

Some people who do some very good work in this space are Clay Shirky, Chris Anderson and Malcolm Gladwell.

This is Stephen Dann’s major complaint about the study (and mine is that most mainstream newspapers dutifully reported without any further investigation). As he discusses, depending on the way you name your categories, you’ll end up with 40% pointless babble… but change around the name and

Suddenly Twitter is the most vital thing ever if you want community  since it’s so vibrant if you take Rheingold (1993) “collective goods of value” as the interpretation of the statement about what you’re having for lunch, along with the existing massive conversation structure.

Just like the Long Tail: all you need is a better filter or search. The content is

entirely in the eye of the beholder; there are no absolute measures of content quality. One person’s “good” could easily be another’s “bad”; indeed, it almost always is.

So, next time you think you’re being beset by crap on the Internet, think about this. Was it meant for you? Or do you just need to adjust the filter or search you’re using?